Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging criminal breach of trust. Court rejected plea, holding that offences were distinct as they pertained to different projects and agreements, thus double jeopardy did not apply.
Criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of FIR is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 Cr.M.P. No.571 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 571 of 2023
Hari Charan Rajak, aged about 73 years, son of late Yamuna Rajak, resident of Flat No. 306A, Surya Mahalaxmi Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, P.O. –G.P.O., P.S. Boring Road, Dist. Patna (Bihar)
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. Opp. Party
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. …..
By the Court:-
2
Cr.M.P. No.571 of 2023
assistant engineer, junior engineer and the contractor on the basis of forged bills has misappropriated Rs. 3,70,762/-.
“28. What is to be noted here is that both these provisions, i.e., Section 300 of the CrPC and Article 20 of the Constitution of India use the term ‘same offence’.
Before dealing with the issue at hand, it is necessary to understand what the term ‘same offence’ means and includes. The term ‘same offence’ in simple language
3
Cr.M.P. No.571 of 2023
means, where the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical. Where there are two distinct offences made up of different ingredients, the embargo under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, has no application, though the offences may have some overlapping features. The crucial requirement of Article 20 is that the offences are the same and identical in all respects, vide State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the offences involved in this case as well as six different cases are one and the same hence, the continuation of this criminal miscellaneous petition will amount to double jeopardy. Hence, it is submitted that F.I.R. being Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 153 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 408 of 2006 and all the proceedings arising out the said F.I.R. be quashed.
4
Cr.M.P. No.571 of 2023
agreement number of which is 107, F-2/05-06. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the present FIR was in connection with the said offences. Learned Spl. P.P. further submits that there is no dispute regarding the settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala (supra) but the said settled principle of law is applicable when the subsequent FIR or the subsequent trial took place for the same offence and not for different offence but here as it is crystal clear that the offences are not same offences and relates to different agreement and different works, hence merely because the petitioner is a history sheeter; his indulgence in the misappropriation and committing breach of trust of huge amount of public money in several different projects; he certainly cannot be absolved of other subsequent offences for being convicted in one offence. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
5 Cr.M.P. No.571 of 2023
relating to Pakur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2006 are distinct offences then the offences involved in this case as the said offences is in relation to the work of Special Maintenance Work of C.S. Office and Male Ward and 200 feet P.C.C. road construction, the agreement of which were different and separate and distinct and FIR of this case relates to the work of Special Maintenance Work of New Female Ward 02 and the agreement is separate and distinct.
the ratio of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as the offences of this case are distinct and separate then the offences of other cases.
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 9th May, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable by raising double jeopardy against proceedings in other FIRs for distinct offences.
Whether the offences in the present FIR and other FIRs are identical such that the double jeopardy principle under Supreme Court rulings applies.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of KeralaExplained¶19
T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala 2023( 1) JLJR(SC) 359
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot SandhuReferred¶21
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 · Who else cites this
9 provisions across 2 enactments
Hari Charan Rajak
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
